4 ms·
Surely the only sensible cost of the data is the lost business (assuming they would be using all the storage for other purposes). No one can access the data, s
by NLips 14y ago
Surely the only sensible cost of the data is the lost business (assuming they would be using all the storage for other purposes). No one can access the data, so power consumption - the main cost of big data centres - should be zero.
Have I missed something?
- rmc 14y agoThe hard drives might be encrypted, since the servers are on, they might be mounted un-encypted. Turning them off would loose access to the decrypted files, and hence make them inaccessible.
- corin_ 14y ago> It says it has spent $65,000 to transfer the servers to a climate-controlled center. It is leasing the new facility for $37,000 per month, after its contracts with a prior facility expired. I would imagine that means they were powered down for the move.
- stephengillie 14y ago...and powered back up after the move, again consuming power and internal network (if not external), as well as running up the MTBF counter on consumable hardware like HDDs, RAM, controller batteries, power supplies, etc.
- corin_ 14y agoThe only reason to keep them on 24/7 is "they might encrypt on shutdown", so if they powered them off they wouldn't now need to keep them powered up. Unless they used backup power during the move, which seems unlikely.
- stephengillie 14y agoYou make a very good point.
- rdtsc 14y agoNot necessarily. There are setups to keep seized hardware powered up during the move. They have it for laptops so I would guess someone sells that for whole racks as well.
- stephengillie 14y agohttp://www.wiebetech.com/products/HotPlug.php http://www.wiebetech.com/products/HotPlug.php
- jonknee 14y agoThat's a lot of lost business. Tying up over a million dollars of hardware and $40k a month worth of space.
- sp332 14y agoThe servers aren't running, but keeping dozens of racks in a secure, climate-controlled environment isn't cheap.